Wisconsin (the “Settling States”) reached the agreement embodied in the revised proposed Final

Judgment, which was filed on November 6, 2001.

Thereafter, in response to issues raised in the

public comments submitted pursuant to the Tunney Act, the United States, Microsoft, and the

Settling States agreed to certain modifications embodied in the SRPFJ, which was filed with the

Court on February 27, 2002.

The SRPFJ will stop recurrence of Microsoft’s unlawful conduct, prevent recurrence of

similar conduct in the future, and restore competitive conditions in the personal computer

operating system market by, among other things, prohibiting actions by Microsoft to prevent

computer manufacturers and others from developing, distributing or featuring middleware

products that are threats to Microsoft’s operating system monopoly; creating the opportunity for

independent software vendors to develop products that will be competitive with Microsoft’s

middleware products; requiring Microsoft to disclose interfaces and license protocols in order to

ensure that competing middleware and server operating system products can interoperate with

Microsoft’s desktop operating systems; and ensuring full compliance with the SRPFJ.

The United States, Microsoft, and the Settling States have stipulated that the SRPFJ may

be entered after compliance with the Tunney Act. See Stipulation (February 27, 2002).

Entry of

the SRPFJ would terminate this action, except that the Court would retain jurisdiction to

construe, modify, or enforce the provisions of the SRPFJ and to punish violations thereof.

II.

Compliance with the APPA

UNITED STATES’ MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT - PAGE 3

The Tunney Act requires a sixty-day period for the submission of public comments on a

proposed Final Judgment. 15 U.S.C. § 16(b). In this case, the comment period terminated on

January 28, 2002. The United States received 32,329 comments on the revised proposed Final

Judgment,

3/

and filed its Response with the Court on February 27, 2002, along with the Entry

Memorandum, SRPFJ, Stipulation, and Modification Memorandum. The Court held its Tunney

Act hearing on March 6, 2002. The procedures required by the Tunney Act are completed. The

United States is filing a Certificate of Compliance simultaneously with this Motion that states the

steps taken by the parties to satisfy the requirements of the Tunney Act.

III.

Standard of Judicial Review

Before entering the SRPFJ, the Court must determine whether it “is in the public interest.”

15

U.S.C. § 16(e). In making that determination, the Court may consider:

(1) the competitive impact of such judgment, including termination of alleged violations, provisions for enforcement and modification, duration or relief sought, anticipated effects of alternative remedies actually considered, and any other considerations bearing upon the adequacy of such judgment;

(2) the impact of entry of such judgment upon the public generally and individuals alleging specific injury from the violations set forth in the complaint including consideration of the public benefit, if any, to be derived from a determination of the issues at trial.

15

U.S.C. § 16(e).

3 The United States also chose to accept and treat as Tunney Act comments various communications from members of the public commenting on the proposed settlement that were received by the Department of Justice beginning on November 5, 2001, the first business day following submission of the initial proposed Final Judgment to the Court, even though the official 60-day comment period had not yet begun.

UNITED STATES’ MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT - PAGE 4

In its CIS and Entry Memorandum, previously filed with the Court, and in its presentation

to the Court during the Tunney Act hearing on March 6, 2002, the United States has set forth the

meaning and proper application of the public interest standard under the Tunney Act and

incorporates those statements herein by reference. Similarly, in its Response, Entry

Memorandum, and Modification Memorandum, as well as in its presentation to the Court during

the Tunney Act hearing, the United States explained why the public comments do not provide a

basis for the Court to determine that entry of the SRPFJ is not in the public interest. That

explanation is incorporated herein by reference. There has been no showing that the proposed

settlement constitutes an abuse of the Justice Department’s discretion or that it is not within the

zone of settlements consistent with the public interest.

IV.

Conclusion

The SRPFJ will remedy the anticompetitive effects of the violations sustained by the court

of appeals in this matter. For the reasons set forth in this Motion, the CIS, the United States’

Response, the Entry Memorandum, the Modification Memorandum, and the United States’

presentation to the Court during the Tunney Act hearing, the Court should find that the SRPFJ is

in the public interest and should enter the SRPFJ without further proceedings. Therefore, the

United States respectfully requests that the SRPFJ be entered as soon as possible.

Counsel for Microsoft and the Settling States have informed the United States that they